Mets' problems are bigger than any one coach

The ritual sacrifices commenced in earnest Friday.

We all knew it was going to happen after the Mets failed to reach the postseason, even before president of baseball operations David Stearns said on Monday that the front office intended to evaluate the coaching staff, with only manager Carlos Mendoza being deemed safe. By Wednesday, catching coach Glenn Sherlock proved to be a portent of things to come, choosing to retire after a 30-year coaching career.

Then came (almost) everyone else: Pitching coach Jeremy Hefner is gone, hitting coaches Jeremy Barnes and Eric Chavez were let go, and so was third-base coach Mike Sarbaugh. Another baseball lifer, bench coach John Gibbons, resigned. And there’s a very good chance that assistant pitching coach Desi Druschel and bullpen coach Jose Rosado aren’t long for the organization, as they’ve been given permission to speak to other teams.

The only confirmed survivors are first-base coach Antoan Richardson, often lauded for revitalizing the Mets’ base- stealing, strategy coach Danny Barnes and coaching assistant Rafael Fernandez.

Some of this makes sense: The roster woefully underperformed despite having two 30-30 players in Juan Soto and Francisco Lindor, plus Pete Alonso and his 38 home runs. The offense was streaky, and toward that whimpering end, it showed a tendency toward scoring runs early and then petering out as pitchers made adjustments — all of which should make you ask why these talented professional hitters couldn’t adjust right back.

The most common culprit, though, was the poor pitching. The staff had a 4.95 ERA from June 13 on; starters didn’t go long, taxing the bullpen, and early deficits changed the tenor of the at-bats. The defense did less than nothing to help, averaging -5 outs above average over the final two months.

As is often the case, fans began to ask for their pound of flesh. If only the coaches had done something differently. Certainly then the Mets wouldn’t be locking up tee times right now, right?

But baseball isn’t as simple as all that.

There’s not a coach alive who can singlehandedly control whether the offense produces or whether a pitcher has his good slider that day. Sure, they can help, but it’s up to the individual athletes to perform.

So while it’s certainly possible that a new staff will invigorate this Mets team, Friday wasn’t a panacea, it was a punishment. And if the front office stops its introspection there, the firings will be nothing short of performative.

After all, can you really blame these men for this season without also crediting them with last year’s success?

None of this is to say these coaches are beyond reproach. It’s more to say that this problem goes a lot deeper.

For one, many of the Mets, like a lot of baseball players, employ outside hitting and pitching gurus. Yes, these experts are OK’d by the organization, but not all are created equal, nor does every “lab” suit every type of player.

Take, for instance, Francisco Alvarez. The catcher changed his swing in the offseason, stopped hitting, regressed defensively and had to be demoted to Triple-A so Syracuse manager Dicky Scott & Co. could kick-start the process of fixing what shouldn’t have been broken in the first place. To place all of his early problems at the feat of Barnes and Chavez seems unfair.

Then there’s just the reality that Stearns built a flawed team.

Granted, that’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but hindsight is all he and owner Steve Cohen have right now.

On paper, the Mets seemed to have what they needed: Sure, the starting pitching always looked thin, but there were elements of promise, and Stearns had earned everyone’s trust after what he was able to do in 2024.

But the roster wasn’t balanced. Some of the key pieces were injury-prone, and the glut of contact pitchers didn’t jibe well with a porous defense.

Speaking of that defense, the Mets (correctly) value positional versatility, but sometimes that meant too many players were out of their natural positions, creating more of a liability.

The lineup also was top-heavy, which meant rallies, if they happened, fizzled out quickly. The situational hitting, which actually improved as the season went on, abandoned the Mets when they needed it most. They were 0-70 when trailing after the eighth inning — the only team to not have a game-winning ninth-inning rally this year.

And the chemistry felt off.

Mind you, this likely was not because of any one player. It probably was caused by two factors:

One, the Mets were plagued by their own prosperity. The perpetual underdog with a chip on its shoulder instead came into the season as a favorite, and the onus of that $340 million payroll, along with the target that goes with it, created a pressurized environment.

Two, it’s easy to have chemistry when you’re winning, and toward the end, there wasn’t a whole lot of that.

So now what?

Well, it’s time for some real, substantive changes. Yes, they’ll have to repopulate the coaching staff. Many of these men were well-liked by the players, and it’ll be no small task to find suitable replacements.

But the biggest thing remains the roster itself.

Stearns’ clearance-bin approach to constructing a rotation might need further evaluation. Defense needs to be a priority, as is lengthening the lineup to give guys like Soto someone to actually drive in.

If there was a communication issue, then yes, that’s a coaching problem. But that also falls on the analysts deciphering and disseminating the information.

Friday may have been cathartic for the subset of fans who demand restitution in the form of personnel change. But until the Mets dig deeper, it’s not close to enough.

By Laura Albanese

laura.albanese@newsday.com@AlbaneseLaura

Laura Albanese is a reporter, feature writer and columnist covering local professional sports teams; she began at Newsday in 2007 as an intern.